Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

[PlanB]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Yes, it's been going on since then, but what's changed is that Arrow Global now have it. I don't know what to expect from them and just want to be sure of my ground.

Send the letter I2D suggested in post #2 because although Arrow Global have bought the debt they won't have read the MBNA file or any correspondence between you or any previous DCA. Ditto Moorcroft. They won't know it's in dispute until you actually tell them - they're not psychic

[Fred Bassett]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Hasn't this been going on since 2007? I've seen your thread OTR!
Surely if MBNA thought they had a good chance of it being enforceable they'd have taken to court ages ago!

Don't expect MBNA to admit that it's UE, they have never admitted that my account is UE, they've admitted they can't find anything resembling a CCA for my old A&L card but they've never said "we know we can't enforce..."

Yes, it's been going on since then, but what's changed is that Arrow Global now have it. I don't know what to expect from them and just want to be sure of my ground.

Cheers.

Fred

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Thank you

[PlanB]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Her lawyers have advised that the DJ was wrong to accept compliance with s.78 since the recon Ts & Cs were blatantly inaccurate when cross-referenced with other evidence (such as account statement details). This wrong decision would justify an appeal to the High Court; however since the DJ had already ruled in favour of the Defendant on three other legal arguments there was no need to appeal because the claim was dismissed anyway. One can only guess why the DJ got it wrong, but the evidence was staring her in the face.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Mayhem How unkind

Haha

Knew you'd spot that.

Clarify - didn't she (mrs mayhem) really win s.78 but the judge bottled it?

[PlanB]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

New case law since that mate. Even as recent (not case law but deffo something to consider) as the mayhem (sp) case that Paul recently dealt with. If they litigate on the back of a s.78 failure then it should be kicked out.

That's the cold fact of the matter. And as above; due to mbna being in default of the lawful s.78 by not sending the correct documents (where's the PT's?) it'll be unenforceable (s.127)

Mayhem How unkind

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

allaboutFORUMS

Para 14

M1

Point 15 is more appropriate here ie fail to send terms and you'll struggle to enforce.

But well spotted, handy to include elements in some templates

[Fred Bassett]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

No. They should send original terms; amended terms and current terms but they'd need to do it BEFORE trying to enforce.

They can recon them but they'll mess up. They always do.

Stop worrying. It ain't gonna happen.

OK, Cheers.

[mystery1]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

S78 can't be sent piecemeal. I think one of Pauls win says as much. (non binding).

They can claim anything they want but they better be sure you can't contradict it or they'll be in the deep stuff if they submit it to court. Imagine having your carbon copy from inception and they come up with a different "copy" oops.

M1

allaboutFORUMS

Para 14

M1

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Also remember if you can convince the judge you never received terms at inception (like a lot of mbna flyer type app's) then you'll win hands down.

As I say stop worrying. You're trying to cover too many scenarios when this is a simple ue case due to lack of PT's within your s.78 request.

End of really.

[mystery1]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

S78 can't be sent piecemeal. I think one of Pauls win says as much. (non binding).

They can claim anything they want but they better be sure you can't contradict it or they'll be in the deep stuff if they submit it to court. Imagine having your carbon copy from inception and they come up with a different "copy" oops.

M1

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Does that mean that they can send any old crap as terms and claim it to be enforceable?

I have also had, from MBNA, about 8 pages of garbage that were sent after they sent me the 'application/agreement'.

Regards.

Fred

No. They should send original terms; amended terms and current terms but they'd need to do it BEFORE trying to enforce.

They can recon them but they'll mess up. They always do.

Stop worrying. It ain't gonna happen.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

^^^^^^

(M1 post #20)

Totally agree.

[Fred Bassett]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

S.127 kicks in. Your s.78 request WAS complied with as you have an agreement. They fail to provide terms thus in line with s.127 it cannot be enforced.

If they remedy it and send terms BEFORE any action then that changes things but for now it's unenforceable as per the reason above.

Does that mean that they can send any old crap as terms and claim it to be enforceable?

I have also had, from MBNA, about 8 pages of garbage that were sent after they sent me the 'application/agreement'.

Regards.

Fred

[mystery1]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

You have a s78 non compliance. This can be fixed. Can not will.

If the PT's were never there and you can convince a court that this is so it's unenforceable as per 127 (3 if pre april 2007).

As it stands, they go to court, you should win.

M1